A party claiming adverse possession must prove peaceful, open, and continuous possession, with evidence of hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

C.M. APPL. 7991/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 7990/2023 (for condonation of delay)

3. Issue notice.

4. Counsels, as above, accept notice on behalf of the Respondents.

5. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. Application is allowed and disposed of.

RFA 129/2023 & C.M. APPL.7989/2023 (stay)

7. This regular first appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.06.2022 as well as the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 386/2019. Appellant was Defendant No. 1 in the suit and Respondent No. 1 herein was the Plaintiff. Parties hereinafter are referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

8. At the outset, learned counsel for the Plaintiff hands over a copy of an order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Execution No.237/2022, wherein it is recorded that the possession of the suit property has been handed over to the Decree Holder by the Judgment Debtor through the assistance of a Court Bailiff on 20.01.2023. It is the contention of the Decree Holder that this fact has been concealed by the Appellant and in any case once the possession has been handed over the appeal ought to be dismissed. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the Appellant. He, however, submits that the appeal be heard on merits as he has no instructions to withdraw the same.

9. As the counsel for the Appellant presses the appeal on merits, the same is being heard and decided.

10. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for deciding the appeal are that the Plaintiff/DDA Allottees Association who is Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaration, possession, injunction and damages against the Defendants alleging unauthorized occupation of the suit property being a Hall in the Ground Floor of Block-2 (near entrance gate), DDA MS Flats, Qutub View Apartments, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. It was the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 11 built multistorey flats at Katwaria Sarai during 1982-87 with two blocks, each having 56 flats in 7 floor towers. On the ground floor of both the blocks, there were halls, rooms, toilets, shops etc. which were common amenities for the residents of the complex. In the initial years of maintenance of the water services, employees of Defendant No. 1 used to work in the complex as well as in the flats situated in the vicinity of the complex. Sometimes in 2000-01, the sewerage disposal and drainage cleaning staff approached the Plaintiff to permit them to keep their tools and equipments in the hall of the complex, till an alternate arrangement was made.

11. It was averred by the Plaintiff that in 2016 the number of employees of Defendant No. 1 increased and eventually they started occupying more and more area and creating nuisance in the complex, compelling the Plaintiff to write to Defendant No. 12 on 04.03.2017 to vacate the hall as the same was never allotted to the Delhi Jal Board. Despite prolonged correspondence the employees of Defendant No. 1 did not leave the premises in question and the Plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.

12. Vide order dated 11.02.2021, the defence of Defendants No. 1 to 10 was struck off by the Trial Court and only Defendants No. 11 to 14 filed their written statement. The Trial Court framed the following issues, on the basis of the pleadings:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed in prayer no.(a) OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of ejectment as prayed in prayer no.(b) OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed in prayer no.(c) OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed in prayer no.(d) OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of compensation as prayed in prayer no.(e) OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to